Eno is amazing but can be a little hard to approach; I like as a starting place Omri Cohen, who has a youtube channel that has both his music as well as a lot of examples on how he makes it.
> Sadly, AI-generated imagery sort of killed the mojo of algorithmic art for me
I used to (and occasionally still do) make generative art and found this too! Although I'm not really sure why - I still love good generative art and don't really consume any AI generated art intentionally.
I think possibly one of the main things that happened was a lot of online generative art communities got flooded first by NFTs, and then AI generated art. I find it a lot harder to reliably find other people's generative art these days.
This is so true! I think as kids we naturally don't mind doing something creative and it not working out well, but as adults, we worry too much about seeming competent.
In a career, seeming competent can be valuable, but for learning something new and creative, it often just creates a barrier to getting started.
> Is thinking about music as applied mathematics a good way to create good music?
As an instruction, I think clearly not, the fact that lots of musicians aren't mathematical at all but create great music seems to prove it to me.
But it is interesting to think about musicians who do seem to think about music this way. Bach is definitely a good example where the system of counterpoint is very complex. I'm not sure if she'd describe herself in these terns, but I've always got the impression Laurie Speigel thinks about music a little like that too. Then there's stuff like Coltrane's Giant Steps, where the whole piece is based around a sort of music theory "trick".
So maybe not generally, but there's definitely some awesome music out of that kind of relationship.
The latest shift to lock down Google's android pushed me recently to install /e/OS. On paper it makes those kind of projects a lot harder, but its prompted me to be a bit more considered about what software projects I want to use/support.
Really glad I have done that - I've been a 'boiled frog' of sorts on Android for a while now. Not happy with being continually more and more locked down, but not quite unhappy enough to shift. Feels like a breath of fresh air to have software that's built to serve me, rather than just to serve me ads.
Always interesting when a project stays 0 ver for so long- anyone close to the project know what would be considered significant enough for a "v1" release?
I don't really get the point of this. If the 0 never changes to anything else, then effectively it serves no purpose and shouldn't exist. Some people even refer to software that way. Sometimes something like React 0.82 might be just called "React 82", and effectively it's 82.X in practice.
In Vim, :! cleans up the tty context and hands it off to the child program, to do whatever it wants, you can open any TUI program and it will work as expected.
In Neovim, :! just uses a plain pipe. Actually I believe GVim has the same problem. Since both Vim implementations now have a built in terminal handling stack anyway, I wonder if that could be used to unify the behavior.
Just nvim. Neovim runs :! commands non-interactively, capturing the output in a pipe. vim, on the other hand, suspends itself and runs the command in an external shell.
This isn't a problem, really, for non interactive commands, but causes issues with interactive ones. I personally prefer vim's approach, though not enough to abandon neovim.
France has an amazingly developed grid, with a lot of nuclear. But I think there's a risk of seeing grid make ups as "one size fits all". Norway and Sweden do well with huge amounts of hydro storage, but few countries have the geography for that level of hydro. Similarly, the UK has an abundance of offshore wind (especially in Scotland), so further developing that (rather than focusing heavily on nuclear because it works in France) is by no means a bad idea.
This is of course linked to the UKs renewable rollout (and to do with detaips around the UKs energy markets leading to gas dictating the price for noe), but completely misses the fact that the UKs spending isn't just spending but investment.
Will be interesting to see in five years time looks like, we could well see a scenario where the UK has abundant cheap electricity being exported to the rest of Europe. Will be interesting to hear what the sceptics holding some American states fossil fuel based grids up as examples think then.
None of this of couse factors in the fact that fossil fuels cannot be sustained if we want a livable planet. Factoring that in, payimg energy bills three times as high would be a good investment, if it protects the world we depend on, in my book at least.
I think someone else has already pointed out that the author is writing from a non US perspective.
But at the risk of being patronising, I wanted to say that we should all try to resist the "the author lost me when" reaction. I catch myself doing this too, but I don't think it's useful.
Reading an article isn't a competition where you win if you don't get your mind changed. Someone might have valid thoughts and opinions even if there are details of the article you disagree with.
Especially in the current climate, I feel like we could benefit from being a little more charitable.
Thank you for saying this. It’s hard, but I’ve learned it’s a lot better to approach new information (and thus, articles) with curiosity, rather than skepticism.
reply